PULSE POINTS
âť“WHAT HAPPENED:Â Former Biden government special counsel Jack Smith publicly testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday regarding his politically motivated investigations and prosecutions of President Donald J. Trump.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Former special counsel Jack Smith; Representatives Brandon Gill (R-TX), Darrell Issa (R-CA), and Tom Tiffany (R-WI); House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), and President Donald J. Trump.
đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE:Â The hearing was held on Capitol Hill on Thursday, January 22, 2026.
đź’¬KEY QUOTE: ” Mr. Smith, at the time you secured those nondisclosure orders, was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk?” — Rep. Brandon Gill
🎯IMPACT: The hearing is being billed by House Republicans as an essential step in transparency—and possible criminal charges—surrounding Smith and the former Biden government’s Arctic Frost investigation
Former Biden government special counsel Jack Smith publicly testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday regarding his politically motivated investigations and prosecutions of President Donald J. Trump. Among the more explosive moments from the hearing were exchanges between Smith and Representatives Brandon Gill (R-TX) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) regarding the former special counsel’s methods in subpoenaing the phone toll records of former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). In addition, Smith admitted he expects to be indicted by President Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ).
The National Pulse reported last November that Smith, as part of the Biden government’s Arctic Frost probe targeting President Trump, requested the personal cellphone records of then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and then-Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) during his probe into the January 6, 2021, Capitol protests. On May 25, 2023, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Criminal Investigative Division prepared a “Significant Case Notification” outlining Smith’s subpoena for toll records from AT&T and Verizon.
On Thursday, Rep. Darrell Issa revealed that the subpoena request submitted to a federal judge never actually named the individual for whom Smith was seeking the toll records. “Did you—whether you think it was legal or not, whether you think it was right or not—did you withhold the name of Kevin McCarthy, Speaker of the House, when you were seeking records on Kevin McCarthy, the Speaker of the House, or Jim Jordan, the Chairman of this committee?” Issa pressed, with Smith responding, “We did not provide that information to the judge when we requested a nondisclosure order, consistent with the law and consistent with department policy at the time.”
Moments later, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) returned to Smith’s subpoena of McCarthy’s toll records and the nondisclosure order preventing AT&T and Verizon from notifying the former House Speaker that his records were to be given to the special counsel. “How many days after Kevin McCarthy was sworn in as Speaker did you subpoena his records?” Rep. Gill asked, with Smith stammering that he did not recall but insisting that the two events were unrelated. The Texas Congressman noted that the request was made just 16 days after McCarthy was handed the Speaker’s gavel.
Rep. Gill continued, pressing Smith on whether he had ever considered that the subpoena might violate the Speech and Debate Clause, to which the former special counsel never gave a firm answer. Notably, the Biden DOJ’s Public Integrity Unit raised concerns about the legality of actions taken during Arctic Frost, both before and after Smith assumed control of the investigation—including potential litigation over the toll record subpoenas.
Typically, the nondisclosure orders sought and secured by Smith are only issued in investigations where the subject is considered a flight risk, a point not lost on Rep. Gill. “Mr. Smith, at the time you secured those nondisclosure orders, was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk?” the Texas lawmaker asked, with a frazzled Smith attempting obfuscate but eventually acknowledging that the sitting Speaker of the House at the time was not a flight risk.
As the several-hour-long hearing progressed, Smith’s prosecutorial record—which Democrats on the Judiciary Committee repeatedly claimed was the “Gold Standard”—was exposed as anything but by Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI) in what was likely one of the most embarrassing moments for the former special counsel. “You prosecuted Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, you prosecuted him, correct?” Tiffany asked. Smith waffled, claiming he was only part of the prosecution, despite numerous public descriptions of him as the leading force behind the indictment and temporary conviction of the former governor. McDonnell’s conviction was ultimately overturned in a unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, with several justices excoriating Smith and his team for overcharging.
Rep. Tiffany went on to note Smith’s other high-profile prosecutions, including cases against former Senators John Edwards (D-NC) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), both of which ended in mistrials. Smith acknowledged his role as the prosecutor in the Edwards case, but insisted that the mistrial against Menendez was not his fault since he had left the DOJ’s Public Integrity Unit and the prosecution before the mistrial was declared. Unrelated charges saw Menendez convicted of bribery and acting as an unregistered foreign agent, for which sentenced last year.
The hearing is being billed by House Republicans as an essential step in transparency—and possible criminal charges—surrounding Smith and the former Biden government’s Arctic Frost investigation. Whistleblower documents obtained by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) show that Arctic Frost targeted not only President Trump but also over 430 individuals and organizations, including prominent conservative entities such as the late Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). Taken on its face, the probe appears to have been a sprawling conspiracy to interfere in the American election process and cripple the Republican Party’s ability to compete at the ballot box.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
